Quote of the Day—Rand on Reagan

Submitted by James S. Valliant on Fri, 2007-10-19 23:09

"What do I think of President Reagan? The best answer to give would be: But I don't think of him – and the more I see, the less I think. I did not vote for him (or for anyone else) and events seem to justify me. The appalling disgrace of his administration is his connection with the so-called 'Moral Majority' and sundry other TV religionists, who are struggling – apparently with his approval – to take us back to the Middle Ages, via the unconstitutional union of religion and politics."

-- Ayn Rand, "The Sanction of the Victims," her last written speech or essay, first delivered in New Orleans on November 21, 1981. Rand died in March of 1982.

I am aware of that James...but...the four are playing to the crowd knowing they will 'lose'...(if you know what I mean?)

I ...being a very optimistic, positive sort of chap...believe that they will pull back from the brink if there was a fifth member.

Justice Scalia, for example, loves to name drop about how he is on first name terms ("I can get him on the phone at anytime of the day or night") with the British Lord Chancellor...(seriously! he used to drive Derry Irvine crazy with his vulgar, gauche, profane late night telephone calls)

I am confident the thought of being persona non grata in 'polite society' will overcome any desire to ban abortion.

You may not fully appreciate, James, how a ban on abortion would be viewed outside of America, about how it is a non issue in other countries...I mean..in this part of the World there would be a kind of universal incomprehension if such a thing happened in the US.

I know what you are saying about Justice Stevens being aged 204 and ga-ga and soon to be replaced.

But the trump card in all of this...let's say anti-abortion-wise, is what it would mean for the Justices...basically, they would look fools in the eyes of the 'Western World', particularly in the eyes of other Senior Judges throughout the Western World.

Judges love to attend "Judges Conferences" where they can show off to each other and compare rulings....(happens quite frequently).

To put it bluntly, 5 Supreme Court Justices are going to vote to become laughing stocks to their counterparts in Britain, Europe, Canada, New Zealand etc?!?! ...(I think not)

At the moment, they attend a 'Judges Conference' and ponce about as "look at me, I am a US Supreme Court Justice from a real Court listen to me, hang on my every word" (which arguably happens now).

That would change immediately, to a case of people pointing, sniggering, rolling their eyes with a "Oh the childish babies from America are about to speak, come on, let's grab a coffee and come back later"

(Roberts is going to put up with that?!?!)

For example, I am convinced that Lawrence v Texas was done for the SOLE benefit of impressing other Judges in other countries!

There is a slight difference between the likes of President Reagan making speeches, expressing support, inviting people to dinner at the Whitehouse, expressing strong support, clapping and head nodding, expressing very strong support, flattery, expressing even stronger very strong support....and a 'Christian Conservative' agenda actually being implemented.

Can anyone list anything of much consequence that resulted from the 'Christian Conservative' fanatical support of Ron Reagan?

For instance...

"Let's ban abortion"

You would require 218 votes in the House, 51 in the Senate and, more importantly, 5 on the Supreme Court to achieve this objective.

NY Times writer: "If Giuliani captures the nomination despite the threat of an evangelical revolt, it will be a long time before Republican strategists pay attention to the demands of conservative Christian leaders again."

I am not nearly so sanguine. To accomplish this, Giuliani would need to win the general election. Goldwater's defeat (after winning the nomination) in 1964 put the Nixons and Rockefellers in charge of the GOP. Reagan LOST the nominating process in 1976, but went on to win the next time. Indeed, anything less than victory, should Rudy take the nomination, would likely put those folks in charge for good long time.

NY Times writer: "And if the Democrats capitalize on the current demoralization to capture a larger share of evangelical votes, the credibility damage could be just as severe."

This is a liberal's fantasy. They are incapable of doing a "reverse Rudy" -- e.g., nominating someone against legal abortion. Once a REAL conservative returns to claim the crown, the Christians will come home to papa. On the other hand, the evangelicals are perfectly capable of turning the Republicans into socialists and environmentalists.

James said: Let me suggest, Mark, that the main threat to your ~ freedom ~ from Islam comes from the West's various ~ reactions ~ to the challenge of Jihadists.

No, I wouldn't agree with that, but for reasons I shall expound when I have more of that elusive item, time.

Certainly does seem to be two distinct camps on SOLO on this point though, with those of us Down Under seemingly pretty much wholly in the camp against: am I right? If so, the answer to why might be significant as to the reality of the situation. (Or not.)

Even big-L Libertarian party members don't all agree on foreign policy, but I believe the party consensus was to support intervention in Afghanistan but not Iraq - a pretty sensible combination. The LP platform has been stripped (and dumbed) down recently. With it the calls for abolishing the CIA, FBI, etc. are gone - but unfortunately also a lot of sensible measures and strong principled language.

I shall stick to facts and "A is A", but as Lindsay points out in his 'Think and be Merry' quotation, a lot of chaps engage in ...."the refusal to think—not blindness, but the refusal to see; not ignorance, but the refusal to know.."

This is always evidenced by name calling and swearwords, (backed up with wholesale support for the name callers and swearers by people who should know better)...resulting in me experiencing that warm feeling known only to the likes of Israeli Generals and Corporate Raiders, namely, of entering a battle you just know you are going to win.

... in America are much worse than the Democrats on foreign policy and many of the intellectual leadership (not the rank and file) have traditionally been anarchists. I don't know about today, but for some time the Party's platform called for ending the FBI and CIA...

Let me suggest, Mark, that the main threat to your ~ freedom ~ from Islam comes from the West's various ~ reactions ~ to the challenge of Jihadists.

Given in America you have a Libertarian choice to vote for, why not go that way?

In NZ I've always voted for the Right out of simple pragmatism (tactical voting): is that the case with you? (For me tactical voting has proven worthless, so I shall be voting for Libertarianz next time round on principle, which feels very good I have to say, more so than expected). Related to this,while I can understand your arguments for not voting Republican, and I can see your reasoning for voting Democrat (although don't agree with it), voting for the Left seems so retrograde, that surely you lose way more than you gain? [I realise that this relates to my PPS below, on which we obviously disagree.]

Two posts ago you gave the link to Peikoff's site for more information on his stance: I'm finding it hard to get to the right information on that site, and will try to get quarter of an hour over the weekend to have a better look, but despite he is obviously not supporting the Republicans, and on [anti]Christian, [anti]Conservative grounds I would concur, is he going the extra distance and advocating for the Democrats? I thought he would be 'duty bound' to take the principled route rather than pragmatic (Libertarian)?

(I've been following your posts as you evacuate, so good to see you safe, however, regarding your list in the last post: better not let your wife see the ordering of it )

PPS: I would firmly be in the camp that Islam poses the bigger threat to my individual freedom than does modern day Christianity, and can't think of many, any, arguments to the reverse?

I am still considering my vote. Despite Peikoff's advice, I have so far voted Republican.

However, Peikoff believes the Republican Party to be a long lost cause. There is good evidence to support him, even within the pronouncements of the most secular of their candidates.

But this seems to me to be the crux of the matter.

I agree with Peikoff that it's not a question of counting up the issues and determining which is slightly better on the greater number of them. It is a question of determining which is the greater threat qualitatively -- and this requires determining which issue or issues are the most important, in the long run.

In order to provide some clarification, and since Linz can't stop confusing the two of us, here are a few quotes from Dr. Peikoff's website:

"The Greens offer no solution to the disasters they predict but sacrifice for worms and forests, a big and permanent cut in man’s standard of living, and a big increase in government. This is not exactly a platform which will attract a mass base; its adherents will mainly be corrupted intellectuals, with not much national influence. The religionists, by contrast, offer as the solution to all problems a firm code of values, moral principles supposedly provided by God and proved through the ages—and claim to promote the dignity of man and his eternal joy. Which of these contenders do you think people will follow?"

"To compare ecology and religion in terms of the threat to our future is to fail to understand the power of abstract ideas. No political movement, however popular at the moment, can compete in the long run with a basic philosophy."

"By present evidence, there is no hope for the Republicans, and no advantage for an Objectivist to remain registered as one. I believe that a man can have more impact by leaving a party, and thereby fostering its public shrinkage, than by staying in to make changes from the inside, an inside which is rotten to the core. In my opinion, the best classification for one to adopt politically is Independent."

"Reagan was the beginning, but I didn’t know it then. It’s gaining strength, especially in the last few decades, in a way I couldn’t have believed when I first came to the U.S. If anyone had predicted to me in 1953 that in 50 years we would see the signs of the Dark Ages sprouting all around us, and even taking over one of the two major political parties, I would have dismissed his claim as ridiculous."

Your "irrefutable-ness" (in some issues) often comes from evasion, talking nonsense and uttering non-sequitrs. This often leads, after time, to less calm and controlled people swearing... dontcherknow?

edit for clarity: Elijah, I'm speakin to you.
(I couldn't work out if James thought that was directed at himself, or if he was responding to Elijah.)

No, your question merely repeats the confusion: "The fatwa was issued because of the apparent 'crisis of the moment' ie; Reunion of Church & State already on its way." Dr. Peikoff is saying that the LONG TERM may come a lot quicker than one expects, not that it is a "crisis of the moment." Quite the contrary.

BTW: just when exactly would you suggest addressing the "long run" if we're always attending to the crisis of the moment?

Because if you do, Linz did answer you... he didn't evade.

The fatwa was issued because of the apparent "crisis of the moment" ie; Reunion of Church & State already on its way. And addressing Islamofacism is way overdue... and IS a long term problem which encompasses an actual physical threat to our existence.

Nixon brought us the DEA, HMOs, the EPA, OSHA, fiat currency, double-digit inflation, gasoline and other price controls, and wage controls. Watergate is a side issue; without it, Nixon would still be one of the worst presidents.

Carter and Reagan were both mixed bags..

The Harding administration brought us one of the largest decreases in federal spending and taxes in US history, and relatively little else. Liberal historians hate this (far more than the side-show Teapot Dome scandal) and routinely rate Harding as one of the worst, but he's one of the best in my book.

And neither Leonard nor I have sought to "intimidate" anyone -- but to describe this with enough punch to wake you from your dogmatic slumbers. Should've worded it MUCH more powerfully, I guess. Now, your own lingo has -- obviously -- been designed to facilitate calm discussion, that's right...

How sad, how terribly sad, that upon writing the name of a great man -- the intention was to minimize and mock his achievements.

How sad, that the minor or secondary thoughts of other great men and women are used by the Objectivists Pharisees (those masters of the letter of the law – but besmirchers of the spirit of law), to minimize or mock the great achievements of a noble man.

How sad it is, to use the name of a great man -- as a prop to intiate a debate for another agenda altogether. And if only that agenda weren’t so pointless and ignoble; but sadly, that is not the case.

And saddest of all, is the sadness I feel when those that know better, are willing to pretend -- that they don’t. What a waste, what a terrible waste ---

There is nothing in Dr. Peikoff's note about the election that suggests an Argument from Intimidation. You are projecting that into it. It's not there. Objectivism is not a Church and Dr. Peikoff is not a high priest. Take his note for what it is: philosophical guidance. You don't have to agree w/him. But to flail about so wrecklessly (as you have done) suggests that you are intimidated - unnecessarily so.

I have been a Republican supporter for most of my life and it took a great deal of mental effort for me to realize that Republicans are not what they claim to be. They claim to be advocates of Capitalism, but are they? They claim to be advocates of Freedom, but are they? They claim to advocate a strong national defense, but do they?

Linz, to what degree must the principle of Separation of Church and State* be violated before you say, "Enough!"?

I, for one, will not volunteer for pain.

* This is just one principle that has been breached repeatedly by the Conservatives. There are a host of others to choose from.

OK, I see you're offline so I'll assume I'm here addressing your post in its final form:

Throwing something like that around is a conversation killer.

Throwing something like this around is a conversation-killer:

QED -- Christianity is BY FAR a greater threat to the future of civilization than Islam. If you can't see this, then you really don't have a clue as to Objectivism's theory of history.

Here's Leonard in similar vein in the fatwa:

In my judgment, anyone who votes Republican or abstains from voting in this election has no understanding of the practical role of philosophy in man's actual life--which means that he does not understand the philosophy of Objectivism, except perhaps as a rationalistic system detached from the world.

The time is long overdue for those kinds of Arguments from Intimidation to be dropped. They should never have been a part of the repertoire anyway.

Take note, anyone who voted Republican or abstained from voting—in the eyes of nthe world's foremost Objectivist you're not an Objectivist! Utter crap. In the service of this crap:

If you hate the Left so much that you feel more comfortable with the Right, you are unwittingly helping to push the U.S. toward disaster, i.e., theocracy, not in 50 years, but, frighteningly, much sooner.

See, James, you keep trying to validate the fatwa as though it were a long-term thing. It wasn't. We must vote Dem-scum NOW to ward off theocracy NOW.

Apparently you'll vote for Hillary and her socialised medicine and bank accounts for babies and her cut-and-run in the belief that she doesn't really mean to cut and run (and will go after Iran as well)?

Boy!

BTW: just when exactly would you suggest addressing the "long run" if we're always attending to the crisis of the moment?

It's not either/or. We should always be assaulting Christianity and unreason generally, but not in lieu of or at the expense of addressing the crisis of the moment.

For Lanza Morio: you chide me for not narrowing my focus down to conservatism. Of course, I have done that. But after narrowing one's focus one must pull back out again to get the overview with full context. That's basic.

With your knee FOREVER jerking in the direction of accusing your opponents of being mindless cultists, I'm doing some serious THINKING today, sir. This endless aping of the very worst critics of Objectivism is highly disturbing to me.

Talk about an on-going piss off!

Throwing something like that around is a conversation killer.

On the other hand, merely saying that you don't "get" something is hardly invoking a fatwa or being "cultish." (Especially since it's taken this long to get the concession I just got from you!)

Can you still honestly believe -- in your heart of hearts -- that Mrs. Clinton will pull up stakes and run from Iraq? SHE won't own a defeat or want to be perceived as doing so. Her "apology" is purely for public consumption -- so, lap it up, along with whatever empty and vague promises you get from Republicans, too. (Tonight, you can hear Rudy reassuring Values Voters, if you have the stomach for it.)

Both Rush Limbaugh and the Socialists are better prepared for the realities of a Dem in the White House than you are, it seems. (Of course, I had foreseen this LAST YEAR, if you will recall.)

BTW: just when exactly would you suggest addressing the "long run" if we're always attending to the crisis of the moment?

Yes. But she's since apologised for her original vote for the war. My link where she commits to getting out (though she doesn't state a deadline) has her stating her current position: cut and run. Your second link is just the opinions of commentators that any Dem would leave about 60,000 troops in Iraq simply because he/she would have to.

"See, the last sentence is the bit that makes fatwa not so great a hyperbole. It's the cultist bit. It's fucking childish. I KNOW Objectivism's theory of history and I don't have to prove it by being a sycophant who'll mindlessly agree with any old dumbass voting edict just because Leonard issued it."

That's such bullshit. Why should I even respond?

Because you're the one who said in effect, as does the fatwa, if you don't agree with me then you don't understand Objectivism's view of history. None of your arguments has ever justified saying that, and it's very off-pissing.

As to what little substance you raise there: will you finally acknowledge that Christianity is a greater threat to the future than Islam is -- in the sense I have just demonstrated it to be? That is, to show that you really DO get it -- for the first time! Is that so f-ing hard?

If you mean that once we deal to the "savages" then that's that from Islam, while a huge and imminent threat from Christianity will remain, then I understand but don't agree. I'd say there'd be a bigger threat within America from Christianity but it's not going to result in theocracy and is probably receding as we speak.

Islam is on the rise worldwide, seemingly exponentially. In its most virulent form. You tell me Christianity is on the rise in America, in its most virulent form also. One calls for an immediate, crushing military response, which your Dem-scum definitely won't furnish; both call for sustained philosophical/polemical resistance for ever. A crushing military response isn't going to eradicate Islam as such, just the murderous activities of the Islamofascists. Longterm, our enemy is unreason, in all its guises: Christian, Islam, and all others. Short-term, I repeat, I can't see the theocrats storming the White House or Capitol Hill during Rudy's first term, so I'm not as alarmed as you are.

My argument has never been about the longterm; my argument has been against the fatwa which said there might be a theocracy short-term, within our lifetimes and we should vote for the foulest of lowlifes even over "good" Republicans to ward off this theocracy. And I'm afraid you Hsiekovians have never looked my argument in the eye.

Now, she keeps emphasizing that we need to leave in a "responsible" way (even on daytime talk shows like 'The View') and this has the Left even more concerned.

You write:

"See, the last sentence is the bit that makes fatwa not so great a hyperbole. It's the cultist bit. It's fucking childish. I KNOW Objectivism's theory of history and I don't have to prove it by being a sycophant who'll mindlessly agree with any old dumbass voting edict just because Leonard issued it."

That's such bullshit. Why should I even respond?

My agreement with Peikoff -- to the extent that I do agree, at least -- is "mindless agreement with any dumbass edict just because Leonard issued it"? I am a "sycophant"? "Cultish"?

Clarification on these matters is essential for my continued presence here, as it is your own pronouncements that are, once more, becoming fatwa-esque.

As to what little substance you raise there: will you finally acknowledge that Christianity is a greater threat to the future than Islam is -- in the sense I have just demonstrated it to be? That is, to show that you really DO get it -- for the first time! Is that so f-ing hard?

The "existential threat" from Islam is being faced by Bush no better than it would be by a Democrat. Of THAT -- given all of the excuses from Democrat candidates for President as to why they, too, will be staying in Iraq for years to come -- I am now well-convinced.

Last I checked Hillary was still promising to cut and run. From the link:

A vocal critic of the Bush's foreign policy, Clinton said: ''The tragedy of the last six years is that the Bush administration has squandered the respect, trust, and confidence of even our closest allies and friends. ... To build a world that is safe, prosperous, and just, we must get out of Iraq, rediscover the value of statesmanship, and live up to the democratic values that are the deepest source of our strength,'' she said, reiterating that she would pull out of Iraq if elected as President of the US.

Where's the "years to come" bit?

In any event, the choice next year looks as though it will be between Hillary (or Gore) and Rudy—Bush doesn't come into it. But Hillary has been actively seeking to stop Bush acting against Iran during the remainder of his term.

Not to mention her socialised medicine, bank accounts for babies etc..

When we finally stand up, these savages will be FAR easier to take out than either the Nazis or Commies were. Internal philosophical happenings within Western culture will have a far greater role in shaping in the future than Islam ever will.
QED -- Christianity is BY FAR a greater threat to the future of civilization than Islam.
If you can't see this, then you really don't have a clue as to Objectivism's theory of history. Uh... just like Leonard said.

See, the last sentence is the bit that makes fatwa not so great a hyperbole. It's the cultist bit. It's fucking childish. I KNOW Objectivism's theory of history and I don't have to prove it by being a sycophant who'll mindlessly agree with any old dumbass voting edict just because Leonard issued it.

Let's take out the "savages." On that we're agreed. BECAUSE THEY'RE THE BIGGEST EXISTENTIAL THREAT OF THE MOMENT. Blanketly voting Dem-scum is the thing guaranteed to ensure that does NOT happen!! Maybe Bush will, probably Rudy would, DEFINITELY Hillary wouldn't. Voting Dem-scum across the board would also be a huge filip for the eco-fascists.

I don't imagine the looming theocracy is so imminent that it will take over during Rudy's first term. If Christianity LONGTERM is the threat you say it is—and remember the fatwa says it's an imminent threat—then we have time to deal to it once we've eliminated the Islamofascist threat and stalled the ecofascists.

The situation with the Democrats in congress in 1974 with respect to Veitnam has some relavanceto the situation in Iraq.
The aftermath of the fall of South Veitnam was a tremmendous emboldment of communists everywhere,about a dozen countries falling to communism from Cambodia to Ethiopia in the 1970s.
If Iraq is a failiure you can expext the same with Islamofacists

The situation with the Democrats in congress in 1974 with respect to Veitnam has some relavanceto the situation in Iraq.
The aftermath of the fall of South Veitnam was a tremmendous emboldment of communists everywhere,about a dozen countries falling to communism from Cambodia to Ethiopia in the 1970s.
If Iraq is a failiure you can expext the same with Islamofacists

But the ARVN demonstrated the ability to defeat the NVA in 1972 so the Democrat congress cutting off funding munitions and low level military assistance was insane.From 1973 onwards the US didnt need to inccur any more casualties to stop the NVA using the ARVN
Richard Nixon was the first president to use b 52s against fixed targets in North Veitnam,previosly they were only used against targets south of the DMZ and Ark Light raids in cambodia against mobile targets on the Ho Che Minh trail which the b52s were ill suited to with ten day responce times.Richard Nixon also overtly took offensive action againsr the NVA in Cambodia.
Previos presidents had avoided using Americas most effective weapons against North Veitnam which were B52s, Iowa battleships which could hit 80 percent of Noerth Veitnamese targets or nujes which Barry Goldwater suggested,or taking offensive land forces action ,rn bucked that trend.
It was the Linebacker 2 bombing raids that brought North Veitnam to the table in Paris
Whether Richard Nixon was a crook or bad president in other areas I dont believe he had any intention of South Veitnam falling on his watch and I do believe that South Veitnam with some back up was capable of defending against the North Veitnamese and that cutting funds and equipment in 1975 was premeture

The "existential threat" from Islam is being faced by Bush no better than it would be by a Democrat. Of THAT -- given all of the excuses from Democrat candidates for President as to why they, too, will be staying in Iraq for years to come -- I am now well-convinced.

And the threat from Islam is INSIGNIFICANT compared to the existential threat from the ideologies WITHIN the West, especially America.

When we finally stand up, these savages will be FAR easier to take out than either the Nazis or Commies were. Internal philosophical happenings within Western culture will have a far greater role in shaping in the future than Islam ever will.

QED -- Christianity is BY FAR a greater threat to the future of civilization than Islam.

If you can't see this, then you really don't have a clue as to Objectivism's theory of history. Uh... just like Leonard said.

The mere rejection of something bad is not yet anything that is necessarily good. Rejecting Left wing bull is not yet to support anything worthwhile. Indeed, it may only be part of an excuse to support stuff just as bad.

If you would like, we could start a thread on the gold standard and another on Nixon.

May I ask if you have read any Mises or the authors I mentioned? How much economics have you read?

May I also ask if you regard Nixon's break-neck speed at creating government agencies and regulations (matched only by FDR or LBJ) to be acceptable?

There was no fatwa. That was a terrible choice of metaphor you made. You accuse those who, by way of heroic efforts in thinking, have come to understand that the Conservatives continuously break the principles set out in the U.S. Constitution - you accuse them of blindly following some pronouncement the "leader" of a movement made. You accuse them of doing exactly what they didn't do. And you accuse Dr. Peikoff of issuing it. You accuse him of encouraging others to not think for themselves when the man has made it his life's work to encourage people to think for themselves.

You, again, refuse to narrow your focus toward the Conservatives. You say that you have been through all this before but you keep missing the fact that (to name just one example) they are assaulting the separation of Church and State. How can you support that in good-faith? Do you understand how valuable the separation of Church and State is?

Reflect, man!

P.S. - I would very much appreciate you stating specifically what Ayn Rand has wrong in the quote Jim gave us.

The Democrats are also sucking up to the religionists; Billy Graham loves Hillary, and Obama spoke at that Purpose Driven Life guy's mega-church. Unfortunately there is no alternative to the two party duopoly in the U.S.

... right now it is Linz' responsibility to examine the American Conservative movement if he is going to take a stand for it.

But I have examined it and I'm not taking a stand for it. There's a difference between opposing Leonard's fatwa and blindly following the conservatives. There's probably nothing you could say about the conservatives, or Reagan for that matter, that I wouldn't agree with as far as it went. But in the context of Osama, Gore and Hillary I think the fixation on the wickedness of the conservatives exclusively—on Christianity, specifically—is ... um ... batty. As explained countless times before in countless flounce-provoking explications.

At a fundamental level, there's nothing in Christianity that it doesn't share with eco-fascism and Islam ... and the latter two are a way bigger existential threat than the first.

Richard Nixon resigned in disgrace, he didn't lose the presidency. American support for Vietnam ended in 1973 when Nixon declared a pyrrhic victory and sent Henry Kissenger to Paris to negociate a "peace".

But want you to understand that in NZ it is not "socially acceptable" to use the term 'conservative'.

For instance, we have no such thing as 'Religious Conservatives' with any credibility or popular support.

A 'religious conservative' in Alabama could reasonably expect to get elected in a Congressional district or State Legislature district.
The same situation in a New Zealand electoral district...the chap could consider himself to have 'done very well' to get a mere 2000 votes.

Lindsay is hesitant to use the word 'conservative' in this neck of the woods for a very good reason...and you may give Lindsay a bit of credit.

I've been familiar with both the principles and that quote for a long time. I have the video of the address in which she said that. She was scathing of Reagan on other occasions too. But how she could have not voted Reagan when Carter was the incumbent is beyond me—she who voted for Nixon over McGovern.

Of course Reagan was mixed, but overall he was stellar. We're very fortunate he was president for those 8 years.

And, btw, Peikoff voted for him.

What you didn't just do is narrow your focus toward the Conservatives: to see the Conservative movement for what it is; to forget, for the moment, whatever the clowns are doing in that other Party. Until you make that leap you will continue with this tired argument of yours that, somehow, the Conservatives are better for our lives than the Democrats.

For those who might be interested, I have found Craig Biddle's lecture course The Elements Of Thinking In Principles to be profoundly helpful in this and other issues. It's available at the Ayn Rand Bookstore. The reason Ayn Rand found Reagan so distasteful is that he broke her principles. Drawing from the Ayn Rand quote Jim sited, what could be worse for our lives than breaking the principle of the separation of Church and State? Did Reagan break that principle? If so, why in Hell would you still admire him? What principles would he need to break before he lost your respect?

was using 'conservative' in the American context, and I am not one, nor do I think objectivists are.
I was simply saying that Rehnquist was a good man by rejecting liberal or left wing cases which came before his Court.

With regard to Gold...(and what do I know, I am merely a chap who everyday deals in gold and undertakes half a dozen international financial transactions?) ...its instrinsic value is almost nil.
The value of gold (and it is great business, btw) is based entirely on historical perceptions ...chaps thinking "gold is valuable" minus the 'why?'...a bit like the 'historical perception' that 18 year old university students are supposed to get drunk and act the fool...(for no better reason than it being 'tradition')

The Nixon tapes are something I have listened to, yes.
Richard Nixon is a man who had his entire life examined by a substantial number of people over a very long period of time.
All anyone could come up with are a couple of rambling conversations on tape.

Well, so what?

...if that is all anyone can come up with it would indicate the honesty of Richard Nixon!

James is following the traditional path of not ascertaining 'facts' but repeating maxims about Nixon.

How was he a crook his entire career? give me your Top 500 examples to back this up...(or are you just following 'conventional wisdom' created by the Kennedy Wankfest machine and Washington Post?)

What the left wingers and liberals pathologicially hate about Richard Nixon is there is nothing ...nothing, nothing, nothing except a taped conversation which was rambling, incoherent, covered a dozen different topics, lasted an hour...and...gosh! ...for 11 seconds! ..11 seconds in an 81 year life...there we have it! Nixon on tape! he is a crook! look! here is the proof!

I really wish you would narrow your focus toward the conservatives for a few hours. Only then will you discover the principles that caused Ayn Rand to say what she said in the quote Jim wrote out for us.

I've been familiar with both the principles and that quote for a long time. I have the video of the address in which she said that. She was scathing of Reagan on other occasions too. But how she could have not voted Reagan when Carter was the incumbent is beyond me—she who voted for Nixon over McGovern.

Of course Reagan was mixed, but overall he was stellar. We're very fortunate he was president for those 8 years.

"Did you flounce?" is a question akin to, "Do you still beat your wife?" and so I must reject the premise of your question.

I really wish you would narrow your focus toward the conservatives for a few hours. Only then will you discover the principles that caused Ayn Rand to say what she said in the quote Jim wrote out for us.

Above, you say that Ayn Rand was wrong. What are your reasons for that?

The Watergate scandal was the primary reason America lost the Veitnam War,Im convinced that if Richard Nixon hadnt lost the presidency that America would have continuid to support the South Veitnamese,Cambodians and Laotians against the Communists resulting in victory
Under Richard Nixon America withdrew from Veitnam in the position of having practically destroyed the main force veitcong in South Veitnam and incapacitated the local militia veitcong as well as inflicting huge losses on the NVA.
The ARVN(Army of the Republic of VeitNam) succesfully defeated the NVA when the NVA attempted to invade South Veitnam in easter 1972 when the US had only 16000 personnel in South Veitnam.America had essentialy left Veitnam victorios having acheived the objectives of incapacitating or destroying communist forces in South Veitnam and improved the ARVN to the point where it was almost self sufficient with American support.
The Watergate scandal not only caused Richard Nixon to lose the presidency but the Republicans to lose the 1974 congressinal elections.The Democrats then cut of support for the South Veitnamese Cambodians and Laotians.The 1975 invasion was a re run of the 1972 invasion but without American support.
The Veitnam War was a classic case of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory where the United States failed to protect what it had invested tens of thousands of lives and billions of dollars,in stark contrast to the Korean War where the gains in that war were protected by ongoing support

Exactly! Rehnquist was just the most CONSERVATIVE chap ever! One of my favorites -- and there are so many to choose from -- is his opinion in Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 U.S. 186 (1986), on why the state can criminalize gay sex if takes a fancy to it. He even cites the Bible! What a monster!

Nixon was a crook from the start of his illustriously awful career -- and just got worse as his paranoia mounted. Have you heard those tapes? Folks like G. Gordon Liddy just naturally gravitated to the man.

And, "getting close to" someone is the way to bring 'em down, is it? Why not cozy up to a Hitler, then?

Finally, the gold standard (or some other commodity money) is the only honest money. It never failed in reality. You have bought the lies of the enemies of honest money claiming that gold money somehow belongs in a "fairy-land" -- when it is the government's intervention in money and banking which have been the culprits behind the business cycle -- every time.

response to maunat..."Mr. Elijah Lineberry wrote:
"He took the World off the Gold Standard"

How can you praise this act?

...how I can praise this act is simple: some of us do not live in fairyland

The criticisms of President Nixon are just silly...he helped destroy the Soviet Union and China by getting close to them, in the same way Britain sought to destroy the EU by joining it

Nixon was not a crook...Watergate was a media creation from start to finish, helped along by sore-loser Demo-scum.
On the 'crook' front you need look no further than the ringleaders in Congress such as Peter Rodino (head of the Judiciary Committee, from New Jersey traditionally the most corrupt state in America) and Tip O'Neill whose autobiography details a long, long list of corrupt activities he was personally involved with.

With regards to Nixon Supreme Court appointments Rehnquist was great! the most Conservative chap ever!

On the subject of the 'worst' US President (and excluding President Harrison who died after only 1 month)...I would award that title to Warren Harding (the only Head of State in history to openly admit he was jolly hopeless).

Erik: "The simple fact is that Ronald Reagan was 120% better than Jimmy Carter was for President in the election of 1980 (JImmy Carter being the worse President in US history in my estimation) I shudder to think what state the USA would be in had Carter been re-elected."

Yes, Reagan was better than Carter, but the "worse President in US history"? I'd give that "honor" to Franklin Roosevelt.

James Valliant: "In any event, we are still paying the price for his political alliance with religion. And I suspect that we will continue to pay in ways we cannot yet see."

Indeed! Just listen to all the Republican candidates suck up to the religious nut-cases at the Values Voter Conference going on in D.C.

The simple fact is that Ronald Reagan was 120% better than Jimmy Carter was for President in the election of 1980 (JImmy Carter being the worse President in US history in my estimation) I shudder to think what state the USA would be in had Carter been re-elected.

This is one of my absolute favorite quotations from Ayn Rand, and it's from her 1964 interview for 'Playboy' magazine:

"'Playboy': How about Richard Nixon?

"Rand: I'm opposed to him. I'm opposed to any compromiser or me-tooer, and Mr. Nixon is probably the champion in this regard."

Nixon gave us "detente" with more commies than I care to recall. His policy in Vietnam was horrific. If anything, he strengthened the Soviets, despite affecting their balance with the "China card." (And it was ~ Mao ~ he "opened up" to, remember? Another ghastly compromise for this "anti-communist" -- but, hey, "only Nixon could" go there, right?)

Apart from imposing (for the first time in U.S. history) peacetime wage and price controls (a major cause of later energy problems) and removing us from the gold standard and giving us the EPA and appointing some of the worst Supreme Court justices (e.g., Rehnquist) of all time (and that's saying something), he was also, to coin a phrase, a "crook" (although Johnson and Kennedy gave him serious competition in that department).

It is I who could "go on."

Richard M. Nixon was one of the very worst things to ever happen to America.

He was the... the ...original Anti-Communist who sent the traitor Alger Hiss to the clink.

He withstood endless, disgusting personal abuse from the Left.

He made the greatest comeback in politics in history

(as an aside, he also had a (probably platonic), but nevertheless gay relationship for over 40 years with Bebe Rebozo, but I digress)

As President he twigged that the way to destroy China was to be friends with them...as is arguably bearing fruit now...give the chap in the street a taste of Capitalism and they will abandon Communism.

He took the World off the Gold Standard...the one event which you can pinpoint as starting the widespread prosperity Nations such as New Zealand is experiencing today.

He sowed the seeds of destruction for the Soviet Union by conning them over the SALT treaty...(it took a decade for Breshnev to realise how he had been Royally Screwed by Nixon)

He ensured a Conservative majority on the Supreme Court by a brilliant 'slight of hand'.

He discredited and destroyed the New Deal liberals by ensuring George McGovern was his opponent.

He set the scene for various industries to make huge profits in later years.

Where do you get off on Nixon? Wage/price controls? In America? Licking Mao's bum? Like Rand, I would certainly have voted for him over Humphrey or McGovern. But Number One? I know you're an insane chap and all, but explain yourself, old bean!

Navigation

More SOLO Store

Syndicate

The opinions expressed here are the unmoderated views of the contributors who express them.They do not necessarily reflect the views of other contributors, or of SOLO, and do not necessarily align with Objectivism.